Has a test been done to assertain the effectiveness of helmets?

[byegad]

There is a chance that wearing a helmet can make an accident worse. The helmet can:-
1. Strike the ground when an unhelmeted head would not.
2. Cause rotational injury if the wearer slides along the road.

What would the pro-group make of any evidence that helmet wearing can increase injuries?

 

[StuartG]

That evidence is that helmets have no beneficial effect on casualty rate

Or to the contrary. Indeed I think we can agree that there is no clear evidence that helmets are, overall, advantageous or disadvantagous. Notwithstanding that in certain particular circumstances they are. But we are then getting into difficult areas and as the stats are non existent or difficult to interpret you might as well go with anecdote. Especially if it makes you cycling more enjoyable.

Just that my anecdotes have more weight than yours comrade ...

 

[screenman]

In case number one of the byegad post, how much force would there be on the helmet if it made contact and the head would not have done so?

Case 2, would the helmeted head not slide easier along a nice gravel road than the un-helmeted one, which may dig in and try and stop.

I have never been able to read the answer to those two questions, I really hope tonight I can.

 

[BigonaBianchi]

I conducted my own test recently, trust me helmets work.

 

[StuartG]

There is a chance that wearing a helmet can make an accident worse. ...

What would the pro-group make of any evidence that helmet wearing can increase injuries?

They should argue, and i agree, that the point is whether it mitigates more than amplifies the injury overall. So while they can increae the injury - is anybody seriously arguing that these incidents are greater than the mitigating ones?

I've always felt this was the weakest and most irrelevant arguement against helmets. It is hard not to imagine that if your head hits something hard then your chances are better to have any cushioning however inadequate than none. The non-helmet arguement is strongest in saying that they may reduce the number of incidents by making cyclists and drivers both more cautious plus the number of incidents where a helmet may be useful is a small part of the total KSI risk. Trouble is it is dificult to quantify the benefits of either so impossible to balance and come out with an uneqivocal statement that helmets are good or bad.

I can say that I'm unequivelocally repeating myself. But hell, this is a helmet debate and you mustn't when taking on the enemy forget us lot sitting on the fence ...

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

I conducted my own test recently, trust me helmets work.

No, I won't trust you. Unless you have evidence * , and if you have evidence then I don't need to trust you becuase you will have evidence

* I mean evidence, not a story about " ....."

 

[yello]

So while they can increae the injury - is anybody seriously arguing that these incidents are greater than the mitigating ones?

It's a fair question. That is, not whether anyone's arguing it but the question itself of increased v decreased risk. For the individual about to set out on a journey, it can't be answered and the statistics are of little use. It depends on the type of accident your going to have. There are many variables. You could well be involved in the type of accident where a helmet would either have helped or made matters worse. You can't know that in advance so it comes down to choice, however you decide to make that choice.

 

[byegad]

They should argue, and i agree, that the point is whether it mitigates more than amplifies the injury overall. So while they can increae the injury - is anybody seriously arguing that these incidents are greater than the mitigating ones?

I've always felt this was the weakest and most irrelevant arguement against helmets. It is hard not to imagine that if your head hits something hard then your chances are better to have any cushioning however inadequate than none. The non-helmet arguement is strongest in saying that they may reduce the number of incidents by making cyclists and drivers both more cautious plus the number of incidents where a helmet may be useful is a small part of the total KSI risk. Trouble is it is dificult to quantify the benefits of either so impossible to balance and come out with an uneqivocal statement that helmets are good or bad.

I can say that I'm unequivelocally repeating myself. But hell, this is a helmet debate and you mustn't when taking on the enemy forget us lot sitting on the fence ...

Yes and very definitely NO! If compulsory helmet wearing reduces cycling, as the Australasia effect amply demonstrates, we must add the affect of lost lives due to inactivity. Otherwise we are not measuring the true 'beneficial' effect of such a law. Recent research suggest a blonde wig increases passing distance by motorists. My bald head would welcome the insulation. Should we make blonde wigs compulsory for cyclists, or would a 100% blonde wig wearing reduce the passing differences.

 

[Red Light]

In case number one of the byegad post, how much force would there be on the helmet if it made contact and the head would not have done so?

Case 2, would the helmeted head not slide easier along a nice gravel road than the un-helmeted one, which may dig in and try and stop.

I have never been able to read the answer to those two questions, I really hope tonight I can.

In Case 1 you cannot say what the force would be without knowing the circumstances of the impact. All you can say is that there will be an impact force wearing a helmet when there would not be one without.

As for Case 2, the human head is designed to slide in such circumstances. Rather than being rigid, strapped to the skull and with sticky out bits as a helmet is the human head has (not always) hair which is slippery and can move relative to the scalp and a scalp that can move over the skull. So no it doesn't dig in and try and stop and it actually softens any sliding impulses to the head. Natures clever like that.

 

[slowmotion]

Does it matter whether they increase your personal safety or otherwise? It's your choice to wear one or not. They might be no better than kissing an icon of St. Christopher before each ride, for all I know, but I wear one. Just a habit, that's all. Do what you want.

 

[snorri]

Does it matter whether they increase your personal safety or otherwise?

You are saying "does it matter whether they increase your personal safety or reduce your personal safety?"
I think it matters very much and to what degree, but at present it appears the jury is still out.

 

[byegad]

Does it matter whether they increase your personal safety or otherwise? It's your choice to wear one or not. They might be no better than kissing an icon of St. Christopher before each ride, for all I know, but I wear one. Just a habit, that's all. Do what you want.

Exactly! The benefits are debatable, there is little independent evidence out there, and you need to factor in the people who would never start to cycle if they perceive it as dangerous (Wearing a helmet is not a neutral act, others see that an experienced cyclist feels the need for one and think twice before riding a bike.). There is also the risk compensation by riders and drivers. There is evidence that drives pass helmeted cyclist closer than none helmeted riders and helmeted cyclists are also prone to take a few more risks themselves.

The Australian experience is that helmet compulsion does not reduce a riders chance of head injury, the reduction in such injuries are in line with the reduction in cycle use, and the reduction in cycle use is large. So more people will develop diabetes, heart problems and obesity. All of which kill.

If I could say one thing to headway and the other campaigners as well as the government it would be this.

Please, please, please! Factor in the total health loss from helmet compulsion before you make it compulsory.

 

[Red Light]

You are saying "does it matter whether they increase your personal safety or reduce your personal safety?"
I think it matters very much and to what degree, but at present it appears the jury is still out.

And until the jury is in, people should be barred from making unproven claims about their safety.

 

[PK99]

They reduced the head injuries in the same way a ban on cycling would reduce injuries i.e. the only reason they reduced was because fewer people cycled. If you look at the numbers the reduction in head injuries was less than the reduction in the number of people cycling meaning if you were one of the ones that kept cycling, your risk of head injury went up.
View attachment 4070

It is not correct to relate the results of a population level study to individual risk in that way.

If:

a) high mileage, high speed, busy traffic cyclists have a higher risk per year of injury than nervous occasional cyclists,

and

b) compulsory helmet use puts proportionately more nervous cyclists off cycling than it does committed cyclists,

then,

The rate of injury across the population would rise but the individual risk could be unchanged

 

[PK99]

There is a chance that wearing a helmet can make an accident worse. The helmet can:-
1. Strike the ground when an unhelmeted head would not.
2. Cause rotational injury if the wearer slides along the road.

What would the pro-group make of any evidence that helmet wearing can increase injuries?

The are numerous papers that postulate the risk of rotational injury, but none I have ever seen that give evidence about the actual occurrence.